Our kids — future Career

[pittsspecialguy]

Hi
Not rumour or news but something that might interest all of us pilots with kids who want to fly commercially one day. I have a ten year old daughter who wants to fly and displays rare focus on our home made SIM. So even if she qualifies at 21 via an excellent flight school I have in mind (so no university) we’re talking 2031 plus. Let’s discount the cyclical nature of the industry for now; my question is - what does everyone think about 2040-2060 and on. Might be a strange question but I am really interested in everyone’s predictions...thanks!

[RVF750]

I predict most airliners will be autonomous by then. Maybe a Safety pilot on board. But they'll do no more than sit and push the odd button. A Shared senior pilot will be land based and accessible on com. When they go single crew, they;ll have to design them to fly with a zero hour pilot on board. Because without the two crew environment, there will be nowhere to learn the trade. Ryanair must be wetting themselves at the prospect of getting rid of Captains and keeping the PTF children.... On minimum wage....

[hans brinker]

Hi
Not rumour or news but something that might interest all of us pilots with kids who want to fly commercially one day. I have a ten year old daughter who wants to fly and displays rare focus on our home made SIM. So even if she qualifies at 21 via an excellent flight school I have in mind (so no university) we’re talking 2031 plus. Let’s discount the cyclical nature of the industry for now; my question is - what does everyone think about 2040-2060 and on. Might be a strange question but I am really interested in everyone’s predictions...thanks!

Somewhat in the same spot. Both me and my wife are airline pilots, 12-year old saying (suddenly) he wants to fly. For me it was a calling, for my wife a (very well paying) yob. Both of us not wanting to push for it because of the uncertain nature.

[Loose rivets]

For me it was a calling, for my wife a (very well paying) yob.

Could you run this by me again? ;)

[dr dre]

my question is - what does everyone think about 2040-2060 and on. Might be a strange question but I am really interested in everyone’s predictions...thanks!


That’s 30-50 years away.
30-50 years ago (70’s-90’s) airline transport was basically mostly shorthaul twin engined narrow bodied with two turbofan engines slung under swept back wings aircraft operated by two crew flying at 80% of the speed of sound doing sectors between 1-4 hours, and some wide bodied aircraft with 3-4 crew doing sectors of 8-12 hours.

Today? Mostly the same with some refinements and efficiency gains.

So not much in the way of evolutionary change.

Going down to 1 or less crew would requirement trillions of dollars spent on R&D and implementation of not only what would need to be fully autonomous aircraft but also ground infrastructure and communications links. No government in the world will do that just so some airlines can make a 1% savings on their labour costs.

The future of 2 warm bodies at the front end of an airborne craft is pretty secure for at least your child’s lifetime.


Somewhat in the same spot. Both of us not wanting to push for it because of the uncertain nature.

The uncertain nature is really for all employment. A lot of people, businesspeople, politicians, scientists, economists etc are saying the advances in AI and automation that will occur over the next few decades will be so immense and exponential that there will be an employment crisis. There simply won’t be nearly enough jobs to go around for all those who are willing and able to work. The nature of employment overall will change dramatically and a lot of societal norms will change.

[OMAAbound]

Personally I think the only thing to change in that time Frame will mainly be about T’s & C’s, gone will be the days that being a being a pilot is a well paid and respected job (some may argue it is today), and that it’ll be the equivalent of a supermarket store manager, or the like.

OMAA

[pilot9250]

That’s 30-50 years away.
30-50 years ago (70’s-90’s) airline transport was basically mostly shorthaul twin engined narrow bodied with two turbofan engines slung under swept back wings aircraft operated by two crew flying at 80% of the speed of sound doing sectors between 1-4 hours, and some wide bodied aircraft with 3-4 crew doing sectors of 8-12 hours.

Today? Mostly the same with some refinements and efficiency gains.

So not much in the way of evolutionary change.

Going down to 1 or less crew would requirement trillions of dollars spent on R&D and implementation of not only what would need to be fully autonomous aircraft but also ground infrastructure and communications links. No government in the world will do that just so some airlines can make a 1% savings on their labour costs.

The future of 2 warm bodies at the front end of an airborne craft is pretty secure for at least your child’s lifetime.




The uncertain nature is really for all employment. A lot of people, businesspeople, politicians, scientists, economists etc are saying the advances in AI and automation that will occur over the next few decades will be so immense and exponential that there will be an employment crisis. There simply won’t be nearly enough jobs to go around for all those who are willing and able to work. The nature of employment overall will change dramatically and a lot of societal norms will change.

You are basically comparing thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and metallurgy/materials with AI.

I don't think that's a valid comparison because amongst those AI is uniquely barely even in its early teens.

The trillions you mention will be spent because it will benefit multiple industries across many years, it simply won't be unique to aviation.

I would encourage the OP to consider that this interest may lead to a career in spaceflight, in combining AI with human factors, or in racing cars for entertainment because fun will never lose interest.

I cannot imagine her having an exciting career flying in commercial aviation because even if that discipline spans her working life which I really doubt, de-skilling and reduced compensation will make it thoroughly unattractive.

And personally I don't think any of that last paragraph matters.

[neville_nobody]

The uncertain nature is really for all employment. A lot of people, business people, politicians, scientists, economists etc are saying the advances in AI and automation that will occur over the next few decades will be so immense and exponential that there will be an employment crisis. There simply won’t be nearly enough jobs to go around for all those who are willing and able to work. The nature of employment overall will change dramatically and a lot of societal norms will change.

Economists said the same thing in the 1920's and look what happened. Everyone ended up working more despite huge productivity changes due to technology.

Given airlines are reluctant to pay for changes in technology (think 737) I fail to see how the enormous infrastructure build and the complete rewrite of the regulations that would be required for AI would be justified.

There will still be pilots into the future whether it is worth the time and effort required will be the question. On that count I personally would suggest it is not a good career choice.

In reality AI is a problem looking for a solution, given how low the current accident rate is I suspect that AI will just create a whole host of problems that currently don't exist under the current Human/Machine arrangement.

[patty50]

The tech with its associated redundancy and legal framework is nowhere near forcing a single pilot to lose their job.

There are still millions of truck, taxi, train and boat drivers out there. When they start losing their jobs in significant numbers maybe then it’ll be 20 years before plane drivers should get nervous.

The Ts and Cs being a pilot will make the job unbearable well before AI takes it.

[wondrousbitofrough]

Hi
Not rumour or news but something that might interest all of us pilots with kids who want to fly commercially one day. I have a ten year old daughter who wants to fly and displays rare focus on our home made SIM. So even if she qualifies at 21 via an excellent flight school I have in mind (so no university) we’re talking 2031 plus. Let’s discount the cyclical nature of the industry for now; my question is - what does everyone think about 2040-2060 and on. Might be a strange question but I am really interested in everyone’s predictions...thanks!

With respect, its not just about who'll fly them, who's going to fix them?

[Retired DC9 driver]

I have a ten year old daughter who wants to fly and displays rare focus on our home made SIM.

See how she feels about it later, say at 18, but I say go for it ! You just never know what will happen that far in the future. Many times, during my career, I was just using my flying as a way to have adventures, whether it was flying on floats in Northern Canada, or in a Cessna 402, landing on dirt strips in the Masai Mara. You just never know where you will end up.

In the start of my flying career, I was finishing a degree, (boring) but discovered flying through a PPL course. My instructor, said the Airlines would never be hiring (in the near future) and he quit soon after I soloed in a C-150.
I realized that flying interested me a lot more than my academic studies. A year or so later, I joined a family friend on a ferry of a piston single, from Calgary to London Ontario. We had to shoot an ILS approach in scuddy weather, at night and I was hooked, and decided to get my Com/IFR ticket.
But I was willing to start my flying on floats, which I did for a season..low pay but a fun way to build hours. Next lucky step, a job offer to fly from the Coast, into the Game Parks in Kenya. Fascinating flying , and a great opportunity to build up hours. Also some DC-3 flying out of Nairobi Wilson.
Then a tier one Airline, back in North America, invited me in for an Interview when I was 28. . I ended up flying with this Airline for 32 years, and retired with a very good DB pension.

I never thought, or even planned that I would be able to follow this career path. But I took advantage of opportunities that arose, and was very lucky too.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/j_3_at_float_dock_2_7d00e763a3119384ec1dedc44f133a132bf96b08 .jpg
First flying job. J3, no electrics. No radio .swing the prop

[hans brinker]

Could you run this by me again? ;)

After 20 years each, I love to fly, she loves to get paid. ;)

(also yob -> job)

[wiggy]

what does everyone think about 2040-2060

That's only looking ahead 20 - 40 years :ooh:....

FWIW my perspective on this is somewhat coloured by the fact 40 years ago some of the keener profs in the Computing Department at a certain University I attended were saying full blown AI was just around the corner...they were however smart enough to not say how far away that corner was..( yes, we did have computers "back in the day").

As for aviation: Some of the passenger aircraft rolling off the production line today that still be in service in 20-40 years time..there is no sign of a fully autonomous passenger aircraft getting anywhere near a production line in the next decade....and even when the AI is ironed out then as neville has mentioned there's all the regulatory and legal hurdles to negotiate.

The much bigger threat to the viability of the job for many is indeed the decline in T&Cs, it's all very well slipping the surly bonds of earth on a regular basis but it's quite nice to have time to watch your family grow up and you've still to pay the household bills......

[Less Hair]

There are those bots that can sit in a cockpit designed for humans and take over by learning themselves what to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om18cOWFL3Q
Becoming a pilot today I consider safe. To abandon redundancy with only one or none pilot in commercial passenger aviation doesn't feel safe for the foreseeable future.
Strategically I'd add some engineering degree if possible and anything that will make you more valuable and useful to an airline.
I'd consider ATC to be more under threat long time.

[Kennytheking]

Who is going to trust Boeing to build an autonomous airliner? Nope....pilots are here to stay for many many years.

[Ian W]

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Arthur C Clarke

Aviation is a strange mixture. TCAS/ACAS, ADS-B, SSR are all based on the 1940's IFF. In 1985 Boeing developed FANS 1 and CPDLC and uploadable flight plans into FMCs. Although standard for transoceanic flight, CPDLC might be being used in en-route flight globally by 2040. Can anyone think of a communications system in normal use that is effectively the same as it was 40 years ago in the 1980's? Thanks to some mathematicians in the 1980's who felt formal proofs were required for DAL-A hardware such as FMCs, the current FMCs are based on architectures no more capable than the i286: Smart phones have far more processing power than the latest FMCs. There are grandfathered in concepts in the FMCs that can be traced back to the air traffic control concepts of the 1930's and similarly, the air traffic control concepts in use today have grandfathered in concepts from the 1930's and are not significantly different to those used in the 1960s. Some will say all this is due to the safety requirements - it is more extreme conservatism and this is 'good enough' why should we change this is the way we always did it. This cannot continue.

Autonomous aircraft of varying capability are already flying, some are using Machine Learning type AI, some are now capable of air-air refueling and aircraft carrier takeoff and landing. Hypersonic flight is already possible and just like populations in the 1950's would not have considered transcontinental and transoceanic flight in less than 15 hours or flight from Europe to Australia was for the rich with multiple hotel stays, the idea of flight from USA to Europe in 2 hours or USA to Australia in 4 hours being the norm is something that will 'never happen'.

So we have conservative aviation meet rapid entrepreneurial 'get to market fast' development with Silicon Valley and others pushing autonomous and near space flight. I think that in ~15 - 30 years' time there will be several disruptive innovative changes. However many of the current 'innovative' ideas will fall by the wayside.

Your question - I would recommend that young children get an initial education in the STEM subjects, "know your enemy" study AI, computing and telecommunications. Understand what computing Cloud services are and play with them (you may not realize it but you and I are using Cloud services now). Do the study at a university that has both STEM, engineering and flying courses there are several scattered around the US from Florida to the Dakotas. Students can graduate with ratings on twins and a 1st degree/masters in a STEM subject. This is the best of both worlds as someone said earlier students with a spread of expertise become far more employable.

Finally, children and students should look at learning in the way they look at learning a new video game - it should be fun and competitive.

[FlyTCI]

Personally I think the only thing to change in that time Frame will mainly be about T’s & C’s, gone will be the days that being a being a pilot is a well paid and respected job (some may argue it is today), and that it’ll be the equivalent of a supermarket store manager, or the like.

OMAA
I thought that already happened..

[cattletruck]

The biggest enabler of our modern times is computing and telecommunications on a massive scale, even quantum computing is around the corner to take it to the next level. Underneath all this impressive information technology is the same old mundane, even ancient, things being constantly refined and done on a scale never seen before.

This has many parallels with aviation, as mentioned previously there has only been nothing but refinement for the last 50 years as the physical barriers for conventional flying have been reached (and restrained by political barriers e.g. flying over mach 1 over cities).

Not surprisingly the latest developments with conventional flying have been with computing and telecommunications (all the real action is now with space flying). Today, ATC can fly your plane, extrapolate this into the future and single pilot airliners will probably be the norm on well monitored routes. And one can imagine the role of that sole pilot would be to just monitor that all is well. Computers would have calculated the risk of single pilot ops with industry and government endorsing it.

Now there are people who may find that kind of thing exciting, it may even well be. Who hasn't enjoyed a morning flight when the air was still and crisp and the aircraft cut through the air like a hot knife in butter, then stood in cruise as stable as a block of flats. This could be the norm in future more capable aircraft regardless of the weather. The value in this future job my be looking out your office window (hard to believe with the current generation burying their heads in their phones) which for most of us is still a major motivator.

I would encourage your daughter to follow her passions because someone who is passionate about their job is often beneficial to themselves and those around them including the company they work for. I personally don't believe flying with SLF will ever become autonomous, I do believe there will be much more flying than there is now, and I believe pilot wages will not be any better than an entry level IT engineer.

[bizjetway]

This guy gives some interesting insight:\
Aircraft of the Future

[neville_nobody]

I do believe there will be much more flying than there is now, and I believe pilot wages will not be any better than an entry level IT engineer.

Which is why you shouldn't follow your passion........

Check out Mike Rowe on that subject he has a fair bit to say about following your passion, albeit to encourage people to engage in trade/skilled jobs. I have seen plenty of people who's passion was aviation only to have it beaten out of them by the industry and end up quite bitter about it all.

[Webby737]

Which is why you shouldn't follow your passion........

Check out Mike Rowe on that subject he has a fair bit to say about following your passion, albeit to encourage people to engage in trade/skilled jobs. I have seen plenty of people who's passion was aviation only to have it beaten out of them by the industry and end up quite bitter about it all.

I would argue that you're better off following your passion.
Yes, you can get a job in IT or some other mind numbingly boring office based job and earn a better living from it, you'll also get more time at home with your friends and family.
However, trying to summon the motivation to get out of bed in the morning to go to said job could be a chore in itself.
We probably spend more time at work than anywhere else so why not enjoy it !
I've spent most of my working life in aviation as an engineer, yes the hours can be terrible and some of the salaries have probably been lower than I could have earned working in McDonalds but I wouldn't change a thing. I've traveled the world, met some fantastic people and most importantly after more than 25 years I still enjoy my job. You can't put a price on that !

[Sholayo]

Well, as someone above wrote - want to be a pilot?
Go, study STEM and make flying your hobby. Sometime around her '20 she'll decide and having STEM under her belt gives her freedom.
AI flying? I doubt this is what may impact pilot's profession. I would rather afraid Greta and her followers. Worst case - you can get a pilot's job in Asia, I doubt they care about Greta and her fears.

&

[pittsspecialguy]

Thanks everyone for the comprehensive and insightful input. I was deliberately vague in my OP in order to provoke the diversity of comments. All very helpful and a great example of this site achieving at least one goal of community help and advice!

[Meester proach]

That landing robot is rubbish.

pulls one reverser , one at a time, long time after touchdown. Didn’t seem to actually be flying it either ?

[Prober]

Robots, AI, single pilots (PTF possibly even sitting in some warehouse in a dismal industrial estate in the back of beyond) is all very well (well, is it?). But would the public, even the sweaty t-shirt brigade, actually even buy a ticket for such a Russian-roulette type of escapade? I doubt it¬
Just my tuppence worth.
Prober

[avtur007]

AI is a total fantasy, yeah we can make computers that win at chess or that game go, (which is actually a really simple game with many millions of sequences), but put it In perspective. - These computers win because they were programed solely for winning these games only. Yes a great feat of engineering and programming skill but let's look at the big picture, it can't adapt and play any other game and would totally suck at asteroids or tetris and in fact could not even learn these games as they haven't been programed to do so. It would be impossible for a programmer to write a flight logic program that covers free thought for every possible flight scenario that the human brain can interpret and act upon in a matter of seconds. And a computer can still only learn what it's been told to learn, it can't step out of line like a human brain can and learn and adapt infinitely, logically and at tangents a computer can only dream of. AI will only be a reality when a mushy blob of a brain is hooked up to a computer. Not gonna happen for a long time. Don't confuse complex and lengthy computer programming with actual or artificial intelligence. But a computer that can fly from A To B is no problem even for today, just don't expect it to deal with something the programer has forgotten to program in which is where a human pilot always has the advantage.
But flying is great fun and although being a pilot seems to get worse from a financial and lifestyle point of view as time passes, it's still a good career choice for those willing to sacrifice. Might be paid the same as the average earner in 2050 but will never will be a average job. I'd still say yes.

[Pilot DAR]

At the time I write this post, the thread ahead is about the FAA realizing that pilot's manual flying skills are eroding. A reality I observe in some pilot with whom I have flown. That will be the challenge for new pilots, the standard has been set high, by pilots of past generations, whose manual flying skills were excellent, as aircraft of those past eras had either no autopilots, or poor autopilots, so they hand flew a lot, and hand flew instrument approaches, looking at an approach plate on paper, and steam gauge instruments. Most were very skilled flying tailwheel, and if not aerobatics, at least maneuvering, including spins.

Those skills are being shadowed by technology, and the notion that hand flying skills, and instinct won't be as needed - wrong! So the next generation of pilots will have a greater challenge. I built my piloting skills renting a Cessna 150 for $18 per hour - wet. At that cost, I could afford to fly a lot. Then came the 152, at $21 per hour, I still flew lots. Then the 177 Cardinal RG, $55 per hour, 'flew it lots. The Cardinal is no longer available, but that very same (yes, same registration - and paint job :yuk:) 152 is still for rent 41 years later - for $165 per hour! How can a young person afford to pile on the hours of experience building to meet the new pilot expectations? Simulators can help a little, when properly trained, but the basics of solo decision making, and reacting properly to unexpected events in flight are poorly replicated by simulators. Instructors can downplay the importance of these very basic skills, but they're vitally important - and the FAA is noticing! Too many accidents associated with the pilot either being lured by automation, or simply not thinking past it.

So yes, young people should fly, but our aviation community has to realize that skill building to the level we oldtimers think is appropriate won't be anywhere near as easy for the new pilot as is may have been for us. New pilot will have to realize that they face challenges in accumulating experience at the rate many of us did, and they'll have to make the very most of hours in the air, where most of us went up and often aimlessly burned holes in the ski decades ago.

The world will need pilots for decades to come, there is no way that automation can replace human pilot skills to the level knowledgeable society will demand in the foreseeable future. A fully glass cockpit Cessna, with up to date database, and everything working properly tried to lure me to fly it across a windmill farm at 700 feet on the Finnish coast. My piloting skills said no, fly around the windmills, not through them! A self driving car, with a safety "driver" aboard still managed to kill a pedestrian! Another self driving car drove over and killed it's owner while it was parking itself! An automated plane is going to handle multiple emergencies, and then make a good forced landing in an open field? I remain to be convinced!

Have kids learn to be pilots! Good hands and feet pilots! Go and fly circuits in the blue Cub in the mist!

[wiggy]

The problem with the Clarke quote:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong" is that things that have already been achieved are then given as examples of it's veracity - e.g. predictions made by some about space travel in the late 50's and then the subsequent Moon landings...

Problem is the Clarke quote never gets used in the context of, say, predictions about the use of controlled contained sustained nuclear fusion for domestic power....something that just like full blown AI has often been said to be just "around the corner" for decades...

https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/fusion-energy-from-edward-teller-to-today-why-fusion-wont-be-a-source-of-limitless-power.html

[RexBanner]

We’re surely not doing the autonomous aircraft thread again, are we? :zzz:

[wiggy]

We’re surely not doing the autonomous aircraft thread again, are we? :zzz:



Yep..I'm afraid it will only stop when autonomous scheduled passenger Ops actually start happening ( which it will..one day) and then the AI acolytes will be along again to say "told you so"..it's whether the AI acolytes that get to say that have actually been born yet that is the 64,000 dollar question.

[FullWings]

Look at it this way: for a lot of commercial pilots, 95% of the job is dealing with the whole gamut of social, business, safety, engineering and random other issues that pop up before, during and after the flight. The actual controlling of the aeroplane is a sideshow which has been mostly automated for the last half-century but is seen by many without insight into the profession as where AI will take over.

I have no doubt that at some time in the future we will have general purpose AI capable of doing all the above at least as well as a human. By that point, that same AI could take over most other human endeavours, so the world may have changed somewhat in the interim.

To answer the OP, as others have pointed out, none of the commercial passenger airliners in production today and none of the planned ones AFAIK have a “no pilot option” available. This will take us 20-30 years on and after that who knows...?

[Less Hair]

The B-21 might be optionally manned.

[Bend alot]

The future for air crew will possibly be very more centrally controlled by third party companies and not the airlines - think pilots on demand, under bidding each other for each flight.

Now think of that and paying for their (your) own currency on type/s, or having to accept a "cheap" flight to remain current.

Most airlines would pay a fixed $ per flight hour, for crew to a (reliable) third party. Fixed cost are a bean counters dream - seniority gone in a flash!

[FullWings]

The B-21 might be optionally manned.
Yes, but it doesn’t carry passengers, either! (Or not ones you’d want to meet...)

OT: The B-21 seems to be well along the road towards the future USAF - only one aeroplane, cost $100B, that stays in the hangar because it’s too expensive to risk...

[RTO]

The industry might be of a cyclical nature, but the T&C and decency has been on a steady decline for the last 25-30 years. I fail to understand why any informed parent would want their kids to be pilots now, or in the future.

[Ian W]

The problem with the Clarke quote:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong" is that things that have already been achieved are then given as examples of it's veracity - e.g. predictions made by some about space travel in the late 50's and then the subsequent Moon landings...

Problem is the Clarke quote never gets used in the context of, say, predictions about the use of controlled contained sustained nuclear fusion for domestic power....something that just like full blown AI has often been said to be just "around the corner" for decades...

https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/fusion-energy-from-edward-teller-to-today-why-fusion-wont-be-a-source-of-limitless-power.html

Interesting timing

The U.S. Navy has jumped into the game by filing a patent for a compact fusion reactor (https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/19/10/11/2136230/us-navy-files-patent-for-compact-fusion-reactor)

[rotorwills]

If you want to look into the future just take a look at a few television programs from some years ago, example, Space 1999.

Then try visualise what may be flying around in the near future. Would hope the max to have been sorted by 2030, that's a start.
My own view on joining us as pilots, is that it is a calling and not a path for monetary rewards. Flying SLF or cargo is a very serious business.

[wiggy]

Interesting timing

The U.S. Navy has jumped into the game by filing a patent for a compact fusion reactor (https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/19/10/11/2136230/us-navy-files-patent-for-compact-fusion-reactor)

Ummm...Interesting, I wonder how many patents relating to fusion and fusion related technology have been in the last 60 years? The last piece of the relevant article in Popular Mechanics is suitably non-comital:

The War Zone reports that the device could potentially produce more than a terawatt of energy while only taking in power in the kilowatt to megawatt range. We don’t currently have an energy source that can produce more power than is needed to create it.

We’re getting close, though, according to Seeker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW_YCWLyv6A). The International Nuclear Fusion Research, a collaborative experiment to build the largest-ever instrument that houses these reactions, called a tokamak, could do this when it boots up in 2025.

Of course, developing the necessary infrastructure to get this energy out of the lab and into our cars and homes is still a long ways away. But we can still dream


(For some idea of the timescale of fusion development the first tokamak went into operation in the early 80's....and we are not just around that particular corner yet..)

Current Airline pilots are not about to lose their careers due to AI, their offspring will IMHO be probably be able to "enjoy" :bored: a full career ...as others have said whether the future T&Cs make it a sensible career path to follow is different matter altogether.

[pilot9250]

AI is a total fantasy, yeah we can make computers that win at chess or that game go, (which is actually a really simple game with many millions of sequences), but put it In perspective. - These computers win because they were programed solely for winning these games only.

Respectfully your description isn't AI.

AI isn't programmed for the task, it is programmed to learn about it.

When you call your bank and talk to a machine, it wasn't programmed about your accent. It was taught to understand many accents by people with many accents talking to it.

If it doesn't understand your accent we don't examine the programming to determine why, what we can do is let you talk to it and have it learn.

This really isn't the same.

I think the OP's ten year old daughter is more likely to find an enticing and sustaining career designing and training AI systems for flight than sat supervising the use of them on a flight deck.

[Atlas Shrugged]

At the moment, the biggest issue with automation is not 'complete' automation. It may well get there one day, but the software will need to be at the point where it is perfect and the programmers have thought of EVERYTHING, or come up with an AI that can handle EVERYTHING.... That is not negotiable and they've got quite some distance to go until things improve massively, or we could just simply decide to accept airliners biting the dust with a lot more regularity than they do now!

We are a long, long, long way from pilotless airliners and this is certainly not the environment for AI to learn as it goes.......!

There will only ever be the one crash of a pilotless airliner anyway - who in their right mind would set foot on one afterwards???

[clark y]

I think the air freight industry will be indicator of things to come.

[ehwatezedoing]

Airliners is not the only thing there is in aviation to fly.

[Atlas Shrugged]

I think the air freight industry will be indicator of things to come.

How so??
.

[George Glass]

Pity you can’t have passengers on the flight deck anymore. I’d like to have an AI or Automated Aircraft advocate along for a 4 day domestic pattern in my work environment.

[clark y]

Atlas,

just a thought. Freight won’t complain if there is no one up the front or even if there is only pilot during period of evaluation with some form of ground based back up. If there is an accident, unless there are human victims in another aircraft or on the ground, there probably wouldn’t be that much media coverage compared to wiping out 300 pax. Management would love it.

[ATC Watcher]

Ian W : I would recommend that young children get an initial education in the STEM subjects, "know your enemy" study AI, computing and telecommunications. Understand what computing Cloud services are and play with them (you may not realize it but you and I are using Cloud services now). Do the study at a university that has both STEM, engineering and flying courses there are several scattered around the US from Florida to the Dakotas. Students can graduate with ratings on twins and a 1st degree/masters in a STEM subject. This is the best of both worlds as someone said earlier students with a spread of expertise become far more employable.
That is probably the best advice .

The future pilots will not be hand flying but managing systems in a complex environment . The integration of Big Data and AI will bring new possibilities, and those are not designed for humans to interfere with.
Training for those new jobs will be tough, and the qualities required to follow that training successfully are different of those needed to hand fly.
An interesting , and probably well paid job it will be , but a very different one from the one you currently have , and not much to do with the one we have enjoyed until 25 years ago.
Pittsspecialguy : a final advice based on experience ; (3 kids and 5 grand kids;) let them choose themselves what they want to be and support them in achieving that., wherever their choice is . If your daughter wants to fly , go for it, do not break her dreams based on other people predictions that may or may not happen..

[avtur007]

[QUOTE=Turbine70;10597169]Respectfully your description isn't AI.

AI isn't programmed for the task, it is programmed to learn about it.

I think if you read my post I do mention about the ability to learn, but that's exactly my point, current AI can only 'learn' what it's been programed to learn. The bank voice recognition example you give is programmed to ONLY learn and interpret voices, probably only in one language. It can't learn anything else and would struggle with people who have speech impediments. It won't even attempt to, or even know about, the possibility of translation if someone speaks a different language to it, it just won't work unless it hears the correct language. Hardly intelligent. Whereas take a human in comparison. They will instantly recognise another language and although they may not be able to understand it, can very quickly make a learned decision to get a translation or Indeed find another way to make it understandable. That's why I believe AI is a fantasy, it'll never be real intelligence that can learn anything outside the parameters it's been programed with. Should be called artificial programming rather than artificial intelligence.

[Fostex]

My guess is the future of human control in aviation is akin to drone flying. Human's piloting aircraft remotely from the ground if required, but a relatively small team of human pilots managing a large fleet of aircraft that are for the most part fully automated in all phases of flight. The drone pilots would only take over remote control of aircraft in cases of emergency, assuming of course, the emergency isn't in the remote pilot connection...

Whatever the case, modern airline flying isn't flying anymore, it is knowledge and monitoring of complex systems. That is not to devalue the profession, but the role has been changing for years and will change more in the future.

[NoelEvans]

... I have a ten year old daughter who wants to fly and displays rare focus on our home made SIM. ...
My time as a flying instructor rings a huge warning bell there. Wanting to 'play a computer game' and being quite good at it at the age of 10 shows absolutely no commitment to actually flying. Does she show any actual interest in aviation in any other activities, such as reading, flying models (of any sort of simplicity -- and 'drones' don't count!), wanting to know about even simple aerodynamics, etc,? One of the worst new students is often those who have 'spent a lot of time on their flight sim' and one of the most difficult tasks in teaching them is getting them to look outside!

It is a great career but full of uncertainties. Be prepared to be more 'wide-minded' (rather than narrow-focused). In the beginning that means looking and thinking outside rather than through the blinkers of an instrument panel. Later in life it means a broad approach to job opportunities, such as where a regional turbo-prop job can be seen as a good way of gaining experience for your later career and broadening your future options rather than "I must get that A320 job" and narrowing your future options. Also, watch out for that 'blinker' and 'shackle' of seniority that could (would?) seriously narrow your options if/when things go wrong in your later career. But I look back with enjoyment at my own career, I am thoroughly enjoying it now and I am enjoying my part-time position where I help new starters on their first steps towards it.

AI will be designed to assist, not to take over. And if you have learnt to fly rather than just to 'operate' you will be more in control of that AI rather than have it 'control' you. I think that we are a long, long, long way off any AI pulling off what Sullenberger did.

[The Bartender]

There will only ever be the one crash of a pilotless airliner anyway - who in their right mind would set foot on one afterwards???

You make it sound like piloted airliners never crash, yet people still fly, don't they?

[Atlas Shrugged]

Modern and future jets are/will be every bit as easy to crash as the older ones.

I, for one, will never set foot on an pilotless airliner - or in a driverless care for that matter, though I will admit that if they continue to put minimally qualified pilots into some aircraft I might be better off in one!

[Chiefttp]

I find it amazing that the OP doesn’t plan on his daughter going to University. Without a 4 year degree, she could be Chuck Yeager and she’ll have an uphill battle to get hired in my opinion.

[pilot9250]

[QUOTE=Turbine70;10597169]Respectfully your description isn't AI.

AI isn't programmed for the task, it is programmed to learn about it.

I think if you read my post I do mention about the ability to learn, but that's exactly my point, current AI can only 'learn' what it's been programed to learn. The bank voice recognition example you give is programmed to ONLY learn and interpret voices, probably only in one language. It can't learn anything else and would struggle with people who have speech impediments. It won't even attempt to, or even know about, the possibility of translation if someone speaks a different language to it, it just won't work unless it hears the correct language. Hardly intelligent. Whereas take a human in comparison. They will instantly recognise another language and although they may not be able to understand it, can very quickly make a learned decision to get a translation or Indeed find another way to make it understandable. That's why I believe AI is a fantasy, it'll never be real intelligence that can learn anything outside the parameters it's been programed with. Should be called artificial programming rather than artificial intelligence.

Understood.

Look maybe this seems like semantics but in my view it really isn't.

The voice AI wasn't programmed to learn voices. The AI isn't programmed about voices. The programming is in providing it access to voices. The opportunity to listen to them.

I'll be a monkey's uncle if training AI to fly a plane isn't far simpler than training a human to fly a plane during the OP's daughter's career.

In my life look at a similar transition. From rotary dial to watching videos on a smartphone, in a similar period. The same smartphone that knows where you are and can switch the heat on half an hour before you get home. Try that with a rotary dial phone.

Understanding voice is no mean feat.

"Alexa, tell me a joke."
"OK google, find me a gas station"
"Hey Siri, how many beans make five?"

That was sci-fi in 1980.

AI pilots are sci-fi in 2019.

[misd-agin]

I find it amazing that the OP doesn’t plan on his daughter going to University. Without a 4 year degree, she could be Chuck Yeager and she’ll have an uphill battle to get hired in my opinion.
in the U.S., depending upon the regional airline you go to, you can advance to a major airline without a college degree.

[Meester proach]

To be fair, if you have a degree your probably over qualified.

Can you do the three times table and absorb a lot of pages of stuff ? Good you are in.

I’d rather they focused on level 6+ English than maths

[flyingmed]

Recently in Toulouse a TRE mentioned that one of the main areas they are focused on in Airbus is single pilot ops for all of their newer products. They said they aim for single pilot ops instead of no pilots because the public are not ready for it yet!

I assume they are referring to a generational issue where older people do not trust technology. The same TRE was saying that single pilot ops may work until the older generation now days are gone and we are only left with people staring at mobile phones before they try go fully autonomous. :ugh:

I also have a kid who was thinking of going flying, I just took them with me for a week in the jumpseat to see what the life is like. I'm guessing the reality of the job doesn't match the romantic portrayal of flying jobs in the movies!

[threep]

[QUOTE=avtur007;10597384]

Understood.

Look maybe this seems like semantics but in my view it really isn't.

The voice AI wasn't programmed to learn voices. The AI isn't programmed about voices. The programming is in providing it access to voices. The opportunity to listen to them.

I'll be a monkey's uncle if training AI to fly a plane isn't far simpler than training a human to fly a plane during the OP's daughter's career.

In my life look at a similar transition. From rotary dial to watching videos on a smartphone, in a similar period. The same smartphone that knows where you are and can switch the heat on half an hour before you get home. Try that with a rotary dial phone.

Understanding voice is no mean feat.

"Alexa, tell me a joke."
"OK google, find me a gas station"
"Hey Siri, how many beans make five?"

That was sci-fi in 1980.

AI pilots are sci-fi in 2019.

I went to a talk about a year ago by one of the leading researchers in AI in the UK (worked in the Alan Turing Institute). AI/genetic algorithms are very good at learning from a very controlled set of inputs and inferring the correct/optimum response. Examples of that now include a number of pieces of research which shows that AI analysis of medical imaging to be as good as, if not better than health professionals.

But AI has limitations. A further piece of research set out to see if AI could identify wolves from German Shepherd dogs. After feeding the algorithms thousands images of both and it generating its own identification rules, it ultimately based its decision on how much white was in the image because more images of wolves were fed into it where the wolves were in a snowy environment. Not good if you expect your robotic shepherd to protect your flock!

If aircraft were always 100% operational, with all comms/navigational systems active and in benign environments, AI would probably be the safer option. But the challenge to make AI safe for the almost infinite set of conditions that a pilot may be faced with, that is a very high bar indeed. For freight aircraft I can see it happening, but for passenger flights its a different matter. Even if statistically it were safer, we humans aren't always rational beings and we prefer a couple of warm bodies up front to save the day when things go pear-shaped.

[Pickled]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/18/pilotless-planes-could-flying-soon-overcoming-public-fears-obstacle/

[avtur007]

I agree fully that civilian aircraft will fly pilotless and maybe with paying passengers and it'll probably start to happen in the next 20 years, but it won't be AI doing the flying, it'll be a ground based human pilot remotely controlling it with real pilots up there watching and ready to take over for the first 20 years or so, until we gain trust that it can be done fully remotely with 100% fail safe. Eventually a sophisticated well programmed (hopefully!) computer will do it with human oversight from the ground and will be called something fancy but is essentially autopilot controlled from below.
We will never trust AI to differentiate between a wolf and domestic dog or even really learn how and get it right everytime, but that demonstrates nicely the severe lack of actual real time artificial intelligence that we have achieved so far that is of any real use.
Fossil fuel use and the drive to eliminate them is a bigger concern for pilots and the future of aviation.

[RexBanner]

I agree fully that civilian aircraft will fly pilotless and maybe with paying passengers and it'll probably start to happen in the next 20 years, but it won't be AI doing the flying, it'll be a ground based human pilot remotely controlling it with real pilots up there watching and ready to take over for the first 20 years or so, until we gain trust that it can be done fully remotely with 100% fail safe. Eventually a sophisticated well programmed (hopefully!) computer will do it with human oversight from the ground and will be called something fancy but is essentially autopilot controlled from below.
We will never trust AI to differentiate between a wolf and domestic dog or even really learn how and get it right everytime, but that demonstrates nicely the severe lack of actual real time artificial intelligence that we have achieved so far that is of any real use.
Fossil fuel use and the drive to eliminate them is a bigger concern for pilots and the future of aviation.

Any air/ground connection would have to be absolutely infallible at all times. Good luck with that. Ever used CPDLC?

[NoelEvans]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/18/pilotless-planes-could-flying-soon-overcoming-public-fears-obstacle/
Opening words in that article:Airbus has developed the ability to fly passenger jets without pilots, but overcoming regulatory concerns and public fears about the technology were holding it back from rolling them out commercially. So ... are Airbus claiming to have developed 'passenger jets' that would be able to deal with what an American crew did when they had multiple bird-strikes over New York and what a Russian crew did when they had similar recently near Moscow? Both on Airbuses.

Back to "Our kids -- ... ". Could anyone with a kid learning to fly, or wanting to learn to fly, please, please, please keep them off their 'flight sims' on their computers for about 6 months, or more, before taking real flying lessons? Trying to teach them that there is a big, wide world that can be seen through the windscreen that is immensely more useful than that tiny little A/H that they have become blinkered to due to their 'flight sims' is a huge task! I am sure that kids 50 years ago learnt the basics of flying much quicker than modern kids for that very reason.

[bulldog89]

Opening words in that article:So ... are Airbus claiming to have developed 'passenger jets' that would be able to deal with what an American crew did when they had multiple bird-strikes over New York and what a Russian crew did when they had similar recently near Moscow? Both on Airbuses.

About this: double engine failure, no APU, total loss of electronics, put down in a small river between two bridges...but as they were Indonesians they can't be called heroes.

Garuda B737 - 2002 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421)

[NoelEvans]

About this: double engine failure, no APU, total loss of electronics, put down in a small river between two bridges... ...
Garuda B737 - 2002 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421)
I'll happily add that one to the two more recent events that I quoted earlier. (How would AI have functioned with the total loss of electronics?)

Also, as pilots they would have been looking out through the windscreen and not at a loss because the 'all important instruments' that they'd become so dependent on in their PlayStation 'flight sim' weren't working normally.

[Atlas Shrugged]

I mentioned this on another thread some time ago but can't remember which one, the biggest thing with automation at the moment is that it is not 'complete' automation. Partial automation is a huge issue - having a pilot who's required to take over when the system $hits itself, but who otherwise sits and does nothing for hours on end - he's only there for when the going gets tough. The automation does little, if anything, to keep him in the loop, and more importantly, keep him in practice, but expects him to go from a brain-dead stupor to aviation hero in an instant.

At some point the technology will become reliable enough but it is nowhere even remotely near that right now.

As the systems improve, which they will, the point at which they fail will be further and further into the areas that make the aircraft unnecessarily harder to fly. Now, mostly, the 'system' just keeps handing over a larger and larger bag of $hit as it progresses, QF32 is a great example.

Trying to 'engineer' pilots out of the equation as much as possible by taking a lot of the day-to-day things and automating them has resulted in aircraft that are, in some situations, a lot more difficult to fly than they need to be and has also had the effect of weakening pilot skills and when it all goes south you'll need those very same now weakened skills to fix.

There is absolutely no such thing as something that cannot fail - every single day there are possibly hundreds of events around the world where the automatics fail in one form or another, and it's fixed by the pilots, who simply tidy up and continue on their way. If you stopped those fixes, remove the ability to apply those fixes or, dare I say it, adopt an 'it will never happen' attitude, it WILL start raining aluminium.

[misd-agin]

About this: double engine failure, no APU, total loss of electronics, put down in a small river between two bridges...but as they were Indonesians they can't be called heroes.

Garuda B737 - 2002 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421)
Maybe they’re not called heroes because they were, to some degree, responsible for the engine flameout?

[Kennytheking]

When I don't have to read over 100 pages of NOTAMS from a system that dates back to 1947, then I will start believing that aeroplanes might be able to operate themselves.

Furthermore, having technology available is meaningless without a way to roll it out in a manner that makes economic sense. I think the cost of integration will outweigh the benefits and it is going to take decades to get buy in from the required stakeholders simply based on the ROI.

[jmmoric]

Maybe they’re not called heroes because they were, to some degree, responsible for the engine flameout?

That is not fair!

The report points to defective battery, and poor training in using the weather radar and poor training in restarting the engines under those circumstances.

Landing a flapless aircraft with no power, that's good airmanship.

Just saying: "they did it", is a faulty understanding of human factors.

[CargoOne]

When I don't have to read over 100 pages of NOTAMS from a system that dates back to 1947, then I will start believing that aeroplanes might be able to operate themselves.


Humans cannot comprehend 100 page NOTAMS several times a day, while computers actually can in a split of a second and without forgetting it next minute.

[bulldog89]

Maybe they’re not called heroes because they were, to some degree, responsible for the engine flameout?

I don't think so, I'm still convinced it's about their nationality and the manufacturer of the plane involved.

[bulldog89]

Humans cannot comprehend 100 page NOTAMS several times a day, while computers actually can in a split of a second and without forgetting it next minute.

Nope, they can't, at least for obstacles/restricted areas/airways restriction. Someone would have to update the database, then verify and upload it in the system. This for every single new published NOTAM (at least in the area of operation). Of course you'll need to remove the expired ones too. Never mind about bird hazard/confused info about ground handling/weather...something a computer simply can't understand.

[Steepclimb]

When I was about ten. I decided I wanted to fly, be a pilot. My main worry was that technology was advancing so fast that aircraft would be replaced by some other means of transport. At the time technology was advancing almost daily. Space, Concorde. It was all happening. I needn't have worried. Things have advanced but pilots are still needed. I doubt that will change much into the future.

But what did change was the ten year old me. Kids do change. While the OP's daughter is enjoying the simulator. That's not flying. It's a video game. I wonder have you taken her to the airport or indeed a flight in a light aircraft? Get some real world experience. More than one wannabee pilot has changed their mind rapidly when faced with the real thing.

Another thing I would not recommend is bypassing University for flight school. Not everyone makes it as a pilot. A failed medical can end a career overnight. Send her to college. She can learn to fly during the summer if she's still keen. Then flight school. Indeed maybe a cadetship might come along. Having a degree can help.

I have two boys 12 and 10 and thank goodness neither have the slightest interest in flying. Even though I took both flying several times and they enjoyed it.
I personally wouldn't recommend it as a career to anyone anymore but I'm a bit jaded. In the end even the love of flying wasn't enough.

So yes make plans but be prepared to change. A ten year old is one thing, a teenager is another creature entirely and that applies to either sex.